| Literature DB >> 35268393 |
Anna Mika1, Piotr Mika1, Łukasz Oleksy2,3,4, Anita Kulik5.
Abstract
AIM: Intermittent claudication is the most common symptomatic manifestation of peripheral arterial disease (PAD), presenting as ischemic leg muscle pain and gait dysfunction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in bioelectrical activity of the lower limb muscles activity in claudicating patients over a 12-week period of supervised treadmill training and to verify the hypothesis as to which muscles of lower limbs are activated by training treatment-the proximal, as compensatory mechanism, or the distal, which are the most ischemic.Entities:
Keywords: electromyography; intermittent claudication; muscles; sEMG
Year: 2022 PMID: 35268393 PMCID: PMC8910932 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11051302
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1Post-training changes in average mean amplitude of sEMG for the entire treadmill test (total measurement). * p—p value between baseline and post-training value. ES—effect size (Cohen d). Values are expressed as mean ± SD.
Figure 2Post-training changes in mean amplitude range of the sEMG signal for the entire treadmill test (total measurement). * p—p value between baseline and post-training value. ES—effect size (Cohen d). Values are expressed as mean ± SD.
Comparison of average mean amplitude of sEMG signal in pain-free and in painful intervals of the treadmill test.
| Outcome Measure | Pain-Free Interval | Change | ES # | Painful Interval | Change | ES # | ES * | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gluteus Medius (%) | Baseline | 95 ± 43 | −22 | 0.06 | 0.52 | 116 ± 45 | −43 | 0.0008 | 0.94 | 0.29 | 0.47 |
| Post-training | 73 ± 40 | 73 ± 46 | 0.17 | 0.03 | |||||||
| Rectus Femoris (%) | Baseline | 50 ± 30 | 2 | 0.81 | 0.05 | 53 ± 35 | 6 | 0.38 | 0.16 | 0.78 | 0.09 |
| Post-training | 52 ± 38 | 59 ± 37 | 0.51 | 0.18 | |||||||
| Biceps Femoris (%) | Baseline | 37 ± 21 | −8 | 0.11 | 0.4 | 47 ± 21 | −16 | 0.005 | 0.83 | 0.42 | 0.47 |
| Post-training | 29 ± 18 | 31 ± 17 | 0.12 | 0.11 | |||||||
| Gastrocnemius Medialis (%) | Baseline | 134 ± 50 | −21 | 0.19 | 0.46 | 144 ± 53 | −37 | 0.007 | 0.8 | 0.86 | 0.19 |
| Post-training | 113 ± 40 | 107 ± 38 | 0.81 | 0.15 | |||||||
| Gastrocnemius Lateralis (%) | Baseline | 61 ± 36 | 5 | 0.54 | 0.14 | 74 ± 33 | 1 | 0.67 | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.37 |
| Post-training | 66 ± 31 | 75 ± 38 | 0.37 | 0.25 | |||||||
| Tibialis Anterior (%) | Baseline | 47 ± 29 | 2 | 0.64 | 0.07 | 60 ± 24 | −3 | 0.75 | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.48 |
| Post-training | 49 ± 28 | 57 ± 21 | 0.26 | 0.32 |
p #—p value between baseline and post-training value. p *—p value between pain-free and painful intervals. ES #—effect size (Cohen d) between baseline and post-training value. ES *—effect size (Cohen d) between pain-free and painful intervals. Average mean amplitude of sEMG signal was expressed as %MVC (Mean ± SD). Change (post-training to baseline) was expressed as %MVC—negative value means that the muscle responds better and positive value means that the muscle responds worse to the walking effort.
Comparison of mean amplitude range of the sEMG signal between minimal and maximal value in pain-free and in painful intervals of the treadmill test.
| Outcome Measure | Pain-Free Interval | ES # | Painful Interval | ES # | ES * | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gluteus Medius (%) | Baseline | 246 ± 73 | 0.12 | 0.69 | 257 ± 55 | 0.008 | 1.74 | 0.63 | 0.17 |
| Post-training | 194 ± 77 | 170 ± 44 | 0.37 | 0.38 | |||||
| Rectus Femoris (%) | Baseline | 149 ± 52 | 0.34 | 0.09 | 137 ± 35 | 0.32 | 0.11 | 0.72 | 0.27 |
| Post-training | 154 ± 55 | 141 ± 32 | 0.23 | 0.28 | |||||
| Biceps Femoris (%) | Baseline | 111 ± 69 | 0.07 | 0.46 | 123 ± 54 | 0.003 | 0.79 | 0.92 | 0.19 |
| Post-training | 86 ± 32 | 86 ± 37 | 0.96 | 0.03 | |||||
| Gastrocnemius Medialis (%) | Baseline | 319 ± 81 | 0.69 | 0.07 | 305 ± 90 | 0.57 | 0.19 | 0.73 | 0.16 |
| Post-training | 313 ± 83 | 288 ± 85 | 0.3 | 0.29 | |||||
| Gastrocnemius Lateralis (%) | Baseline | 183 ± 56 | 0.38 | 0.25 | 181 ± 50 | 0.45 | 0.09 | 0.9 | 0.03 |
| Post-training | 197 ± 53 | 176 ± 55 | 0.55 | 0.38 | |||||
| Tibialis Anterior (%) | Baseline | 111 ± 49 | 0.12 | 0.43 | 104 ± 43 | 0.01 | 0.81 | 0.59 | 0.15 |
| Post-training | 134 ± 57 | 144 ± 55 | 0.92 | 0.17 |
p #—p value between baseline and post-training value. p *—p value between pain-free and painful intervals. ES #—effect size (Cohen d) between baseline and post-training value. ES *—effect size (Cohen d) between pain-free and painful intervals.. Mean amplitude range of the sEMG signal of sEMG signal was expressed as %MVC (Mean ± SD).
Figure 3Differences in average mean amplitude of sEMG signal among patients with different walking time. p *—p value between study groups 1 and 2; p **—p value between study groups 1 and 3; p ***—p value between study groups 2 and 3. ES—effect size (Cohen d). Values are expressed as mean ± SD.
Figure 4Differences in mean amplitude range of the sEMG signal among patients with different walking time. p *—p value between study groups 1 and 2; p **—p value between study groups 1 and 3; p ***—p value between study groups 2 and 3. ES—effect size (Cohen d). Values are expressed as mean ± SD.